As anticipated, the Department of Justice has filed a complaint in Arizona federal court seeking a declaration and injunction that Arizona SB 1070, the controversial statute signed into law April 23 regarding immigration is unconstitutional. The DOJ complaint has three causes of action: the supremacy clause, preemption, and the [dormant] commerce clause.

With the complaint, the DOJ has filed a motion for preliminary injunction and supporting memorandum [available here]. The DOJ memo concentrates on the preemption argument as the basis for the likelihood to prevail on the merits prong of the preliminary injunction standard. (We've previously discussed the preemption arguments here). The DOJ argues different types of preemption, including field and conflict:

In enacting a state policy of “attrition through enforcement,” Arizona’s S.B. 1070 ignores every objective of the federal immigration system, save one: the immediate apprehension and criminal sanction of all unlawfully present aliens. See S.B. 1070 § 1. Arizona’s one-size-fits-all approach to immigration policy and enforcement undermines the federal government’s ability to balance the variety of objectives inherent in the federal immigration system, including the federal government’s focus on the most dangerous aliens. By requiring local police officers to engage in maximum inquiry and verification (on pain of civil suit) and by providing for the conviction and incarceration of certain foreign nationals in Arizona for their failure to register, for entering or traveling throughout the state using commercial transportation, or for soliciting work, the “balance” struck by S.B. 1070 is not only different from that of the federal government, but it will interfere with the federal government’s ability to administer and enforce the immigration laws in a manner consistent with the aforementioned concerns that are reflected in the INA. Despite the statute’s self serving claim that it “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration,” S.B. 1070 § 12, the act mandates a conflicting, Arizona-specific immigration policy – “attrition through enforcement” – and prescribes various provisions that implement that policy in conflict with federal priorities. To permit a hodgepodge of state immigration policies, such as the one Arizona has attempted in S.B. 1070, would impermissibly interfere with the federal government’s balance of uniquely national interests and priorities in a number of ways.

DOJ Memo at 23 (emphasis added). Additionally, the memo argues that the state law interferes with United States foreign relations and foreign affairs.

The memo also highlights specific provisions of SB 1070 that it argues are preempted. The memo argues sections 2 and 6 are preempted because their mandatory requirements for determining immigration status conflict with federal law and priorities: section 2 will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and is therefore at odds with congressional objectives and will "burden federal resources and impede federal enforcement and policy priorities;” section 6 extends Arizona’s “warrantless arrest authority to out-of-state ‘removable’ offenses and is preempted because it will lead to the harassment of aliens.” Section 3, the “complete or carry an alien registration document” provision is preempted because interferes with comprehensive federal alien registration law and “seeks to criminalize unlawful presence and will result in the harassment of aliens.” Section 4, amending Arizona’s alien smuggling statute is preempted because it conflicts with federal law. Section 5, the state criminal sanction against unauthorized aliens who solicit or perform work is preempted by the federal employer sanctions scheme, and the “transporting, harboring, or concealing provision” violates preemption and dormant commerce clause principles (the item of commerce in question being the “alien” him or herself).

This high-profile complaint joins the other lawsuits filed alleging the unconstitutionality of SB1070, including on equal protection grounds.

Comments

The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants. This sets the stage for a clash between the federal government and Arizona over the SB1070 immigration crackdown.

Do you think the feds have a valid case? Are you happy that republican governor of Arizona will be spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to defend they law?